@DavidFoerster Done. We can vote to close that question as a duplicate of this one now, which I've done.

@EliahKagan this does not seem to me a sensible way of resolving the issue. this issue definitely warrants being raised on meta before you close the other question -- which is clearly not a duplicate of this one, as the other question is older. the answer here belongs under the other question.

@Morgoth still dumb . . . #classic stackexchange. this "normal practice" breaks the reputation system, rewards people for posting dupe questions, oddly penalizes people when their original questions are popular enough to be duplicated.

@dbliss Besides the strong network-wide consensus established by votes on the question Morgoth linked, our existing community consensus supports closing older questions as duplicates of newer ones. The closest I could find to an opposing consensus was this, but really it does not support your position at all because it is specifically about "voting to close them as dupes of your own new question" which doesn't apply here. If you want this discussed on Ask Ubuntu Meta, just post there! But there is no reason to wait to close.

@EliahKagan SE rule #1: don't post a duplicate question. SE rule #2: if you post a duplicate question, close and remove the original question, obtain upvotes for your dupe. this is a 10/10 way to design rules. y'all deserve a medal. hard to believe this site is run by out-of-work programmers and people in intro comp sci classes.

@dbliss You seem to think that the purpose of Ask Ubuntu is to reward people with reputation points in the most fair manner possible. Please review the tour. This site exists to actually help people in the real world by building "a library of detailed answers to every question about Ubuntu." Please notice the prominent presence of "answers" and how rep is not mentioned until the second half of the tour. The reputation system exists to support the quality and usefulness of actual content, not the other way around. (I also disagree that "don't post a duplicate question" is "SE rule #1.")

@EliahKagan you are clearly experienced enough to know that privileges come with reputation, making reputation the primary gateway for the access to this site's features. i wouldn't be surprised if the SE rules were numbered (probably in some arcane way), but i hope it's clear that i was not trying to number them -- i was listing two contradictory "rules." there should never be duplicates on this site. this is an egregious example -- the question is such a simple and general one, there was essentially zero chance it hadn't been asked before Morgoth came around. a shockingly lazy repost.

@dbliss "there should never be duplicates on this site." That's absolutely false. See this post. As for "rule #1," I didn't think you meant it was literally numbered 1, but instead that it was the most important rule. Incidentally, if anything does deserve to be called "rule #1," surely it would be the "be nice" policy, which mentions terms that feel personal even when they're applied to posts (like "lazy", "ignorant", or "whiny") explicitly.

@EliahKagan nice to read that a founder of SE has talked himself into celebrating plagiarism because the SE design is hopelessly unable to prevent or punish it.

yo

Hi.

my point is pretty simple

if i post a question

that is my work

if someone reposts this question

they have plagiarized me

we can debate whether questions are creative works in the way . . . novels are (they're not)

and we can debate whether this form of plagiarism matters much (it doesn't)

but it still seems like a form of plagiarism to me

taking credit for someone else's question

but we've already talked too much about this.

the 50 or so SE fanatics who cared enough to vote for the "consensus view" that older posts can be duplicates seem to have failed to consider that it is super annoying to have your question deleted because someone else posted a dupe of it.

This is absolutely not plagiarism at all. Plagiarism is actually copying someone else's work, or at least the non-trivial ideas in it, and falsely representing it as one's own. If I ask a question, and later you come up with and ask a question that can be answered the same way, that is not plagiarism.

it is though.

my question was public.

any reasonable user of this website would have been aware of it.

that user then reposted the same question in an apparent attempt to gain reputation.

However, I agree that deletion is sometimes overused. The system will not itself delete your question because both it, and its answer, have positive score. Furthermore, one of--though not the only--consideration I had when I upvoted your question was to further decrease the likelihood that it would be deleted.

Failing to do proper research, if that even is what happened here, is not plagiarism.

hmm, is that legally true?

That is simply not what plagiarism is. I don't know why you think that is plagiarism, but it is not.

i don't think it is.

Considering that plagiarism is not actually illegal, I don't understand your question.

there are cases where plagiarism is illegal.

Explain. Or are you confusing plagiarism with copyright violation?

i'm not confusing them.

copyright violation is one example of a kind of plagiarism.

*one example of plagiarism.

That is false. It is legally false because plagiarism is not defined by law. But it is also false that copyright violation is a kind of plagiarism, because most copyright violation is not plagiarism at all.

you seem to be saying that if a person is unaware of another person's work, and reproduces that person's work, this is not plagiarism

i guess that's fair

obviously that's not much of a defense in this case or most other cases

when the copied work is something the "reproducer" should have been aware of

if i submit a reproduction of one of einstein's papers

and then claim einstein's is a dupe of mine

and further claim that i only rewrote his paper because i didn't realize he'd already written it

this would be insane

This is not a case of plagiarism, so no defense against plagiarism is necessary or relevant here. When someone else independently has the same idea as you, that is not "reproduction" in the sense that is relevant to plagiarism.

k

Under your idea of plagiarism, Einstein's own papers would be considered plagiarism, because they incorporated numerous ideas developed by others without citing them.

let's forget the word "plagiarism" because it seems to be clouding the issue for you.

that is correct: if einstein used ideas from previously published work he should have been aware of, he should have cited this work.

is that something you disagree wtih?

it is something you disagree with.

you believe that the previously published work should now be considered a duplicate of einstein's work and deleted from the physics literature.

What do you mean by "from previously published work"? Are you talking about copying the ideas, or just separately originating them? But also... you just said we should "forget the word 'plagiarism'" so I am confused as to why you are continuing the conversation about it. Do you want to discuss plagiarism, or not?

let's not get lost here.

why are we here?

we are here to discuss the issue about duplicate questions.

i referred to question duplication as being an instance of plagiarism.

you disagreed.

we certainly don't need to stop the first debate and move into a debate about how to interpret the meaning of the word "plagiarism."

all of the examples being discussed (e.g., einstein) are important only insofar as they bear on the issue of question duplication.

agree?

the new question does not "borrow ideas" from my question. it is a pretty straightforward literal duplicate.

you claim that instead we should interpret my question as a duplicate.

How is it "a pretty straightforward literal duplicate"?

it is the same question.

I mean, it's not the same text. It's not asked in the same way. The similarity is that they are both asking for help with the same problem, which numerous other users also have. The similarities are the result of the commonality of using the same release of Ubuntu.

If by "interpret" you mean I think we should close your question as a duplicate of the newer one, then yes, I do think that.

yeah, that's what i mean.

so this was, what, 10 minutes we've been talking?

so far you've reiterated that this is the way SE should work:

(1) i post a simple question

(2) it is answered

(3) someone comes along with the same simple question, fails to Google this question, reposts it on SE

It is not obvious to me that they actually failed to search, but it's possible.

(4) someone answers that, again not bothering to check whether it's been asked before

k

(5) you close my question as a dupe of the one that came after

let's explore this very important shade of gray you're raising

we do not know the life history of the person who posted a duplicate of an exceedingly simple question on SE

perhaps this person DID see my question, but later forgot

perhaps they never saw my question, but saw other questions i posted

wait

call me crazy, but . . . i'm starting to feel like these shades of gray don't actually matter

and that there is actually no benefit to reposting the same simple question on SE

What shades of gray? What are you talking about? Are you saying that someone asking a question that you asked before is some kind of injustice that requires remediation?

If your question is "exceedingly simple," then surely you have no claim that any substantial original work has been copied.

yes, exactly

i'm saying that posting a duplicate is bad

and it should not be rewarded

the justification for duplicates is that they add human variation to the wording of questions

which is clearly not needed for a question this simple.

Are you saying the other question has exactly the same wording as yours? It looks different to me.

nope

as far as i'm concerned, the exact wording here doesn't matter at al.

*all.

Are you saying the exact wording doesn't matter to people's ability to find the questions? That doesn't sound right.

in this case, i'd argue that.

wait

that actually doesn't matter.

if my wording was bad, my question should have been edited.

i guess your position is that we should have as many versions of a question as there are ways of wording it.

Did you read the blog post about the value of linking duplicates? The whole point is that it can be valuable to have a question asked two different ways existing on the site at the same time. Editing your question would not achieve that. However I actually do agree with you that this doesn't matter, or at least not much. The core issue is that no one is obligated to keep your question open, or even to refrain from deleting it (though I hope that doesn't happen), just because you posted it first.

so you would argue that if there are 10 ways of wording a question, we should have all 10 versions on the site.

and the 9 versions with the fewest upvotes should be considered dupes of the one with the most upvotes.

Sometimes that is actually the case, but usually it is not. But again, this is all secondary. Your question should be made the duplicate because the other one has more useful answers.

ok, at least i now see the logic of your position.

Just to clarify, this is not just my position, but also the overwhelmingly most widely supported position.

the disagreement between us is about the value of diversity of wording.

No, that's not the case.

The disagreement between us is about the value of sending people to the answers that are most likely to inform and help them.

no, that's not our disagreement.

As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of the reputation system is to support a site that helps people by providing useful answers to questions. There is no way that every action can be rewarded in direct proportion to its ultimate usefulness. Its ultimate usefulness may never been be known. The benefit of making more useful answers more likely to be found should not be sacrificed to make the reputation system appear more fair in a specific narrow way in a specific case. That makes no sense.

no, we agree about the importance of helpful answers.

It is. I want to close the question with the answer that is less likely to help people instead of the question with the answer that is more likely to help people.

i'll explain why that's not our disagreement.

We may disagree about the value of having duplicates with different wording, but I don't think that's our main disagreement.

i think it is.

i'll explain why i think that.

My position is essentially the same as what Shog9 says here. It is entirely about the value of the posts themselves.

so your goal is, make sure the most helpful answers are easiest to find.

right?

i'll assume that's right.

i agree.

While that is not the only possible goal, that is my goal in helping to reopen the newer question and voting to close your question as a duplicate of it, yes.

cool.

so here's what i'd do:

i'd move the best answer to be under my question.

because my question is the original question, and the other one need not ever have existed.

i guess you'd argue that something about the wording of the duplicate question inspired this better answer.

so they should be kept together.

I assume you mean that the newer question should be re-closed and its answers merged into your question? That could be done; it is a power moderators have. It is very hard to undo it, so it is usually not done unless it is overwhelmingly clear that the questions are are asking for the same thing and all the answers apply, but I think merging--in one direction or the other--would probably be acceptable in this case. But your question being asked first doesn't seem important to this.

i agree that only one question needs to exist here.

and all the answers should be under the merged question.

it seems like a universally accepted thing that credit should go to the person who first introduced something.

I'm not arguing that something about the wording of the duplicate inspired the better answer.

ok

a lot of times people who founded/invented/first proposed something don't get credit.

but this is always considered to be a shame.

But I don't think only one question needs to exist. That may be true, but I am unsure if it is. Merging doesn't delete the question that answers are merged from. It locks it, which actually prevents deletion. It will still be found by searching. The lock does prevent further voting on the question, however.

i see

well then our main disagreement is whether being first matters

Yeah, that may be our main disagreement. It really doesn't matter.

like, if we were talking about blocks of wood, or something, it wouldn't matter

it only matters because people are involved

and people have self-esteem

so we may have different views on how to treat people

Can't "because people are involved" and "people have self-esteem" be used to argue for anything? What about all the people who disagree with you, which appears to be most people on SE. It is at least most people who have availed themselves of the opportunity to express that opinion by voting on meta. What about people who are looking for an answer?

hmm

fair

w/e

it seems to me axiomatically wrong

to credit person B for saying X when person A said X first.

i honestly can't wrap my head around thinking otherwise.

You are saying that the actual fact that B said X should not be acknowledged? I don't follow. Posts have dates and times on them.

We do have different views about how to treat people. I think people who search for and read answers should be treated decently, and although it would be an error to actually call SE a democracy, I think the will of users should be respected in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise. There may be other differences in our views, too, of course.

yeah

if A says X

and B says X

Can I ask you a question? Do you believe that you were the first person to ask how to do this?

like, this could be a question in an ethics book for children.

no

You don't believe you were the first to ask?

on SE?

or in life?

I am confused as to how you could think a basic moral issue of giving proper credit wouldn't apply across different websites. But let's say, just on Ask Ubuntu. Do you think you are the first person to ask how to do this on Ask Ubuntu?

how could it possibly apply across different websites?

on askubuntu, i believe credit should go to whoever asked this question first.

that's a public forum, and later askers of the same question should have been aware of the original asking of it.

but users of askubuntu have no obligation to search all possible websites.

i really have to go, this is getting insane . . .

good luck

We have this:

I'm just trying to understand what your standards for originality are, because your question was answered before you asked it, too.

You can flag your question for closure as a duplicate of a different question if that satisfies you more.

Anyway, I strongly encourage you to post on Ask Ubuntu Meta if you want this reviewed, because based on what we have each said so far, I don't think you are likely to convince me, and even if you did, it's mostly not up to me anyway.

We have a number of questions about upgrading to a later version of Python 2.7 with answers that recommend the specific PPA recommended in the answer to your question. Some precede your question significantly. (I'm leaving this here in case it's useful. I understand that you may not be reading this, and may not see it for some time--if ever--and I absolutely do not take your silence as any kind of agreement.)

The list is ordered from newer to older: askubuntu.com/…

so let me get this straight

your rationale is . . .

first time a question is asked, it gets protected

second time it's asked it is a duplicate of the third time it's asked

my standard for originality is . . . whether something is original (meaning, in this case, asked for the first time).

what would the alternative standard be?

it is on the face absurd to label something written in 2016 as a duplicate of something written in 2017.

what you should have done is mark both my question and the 2017 question as duplicates of the original question.

@dbliss Why is this still about what I should have done? You had an extremely negative view of someone else posting a question similar to yours, on the grounds that they should have searched and never posted it in the first place. You accused that person of plagiarism (falsely, publicly, and without actually knowing what plagiarism is). You articulated a number of high-minded claims about how people should behave toward one another.

Now you have discovered that your question was similar to earlier questions, questions that were asked years before it. Questions that you could yourself have found by searching. Does this not give you pause? Does this not lead you to scrutinize either your beliefs or your behavior?

In spite of our disagreements, I engaged with you before because I felt that you had a serious concern. But now I am beginning to think that you don't care about this at all. Have I been trolled? Are you playing a joke on me?

no, you haven't been trolled.

if you want to debate our knowledge of the meanings of words, that is 100% not something i'm interested in.

my question was a duplicate of a previous one.

the 2017 question was a duplicate of mine.

i stand by my accusation of plagiarism.

i also contend that i plagiarized the first question.

i contend this publicly.

with maximum negativity.

i further contend that the standard practices of mods on this website make no sense whatsoever.

that meta consists of swarm voting by obsessive visitors of this site.

and that 50% of the activity on this site is lazy garbage, the other 50% obsessive nitpicking.

if you were a random user of this site, this interaction would make sense to me.

it does blow my mind a bit that you have been given decision making authority on a site visited by this many people each day.

Sorry, I was really trying to disengage from this conversation, because it is extremely difficult for me to proceed under the assumption that you are acting in good faith. However, I do want to make sure you understand that I am not a moderator. You know that, right?

yeah, it really seems to have thrown you that your revelation of an earlier question than mine wasn't like a big reveal

it seems you expected this to change the whole shape of our disagreement

whereas it should've been clear that my position would be consistent

earlier questions deserve the credit, later questions deserve no credit.

who authors a question isn't really relevant to that position.

the fact that i am the author of one of these questions is not relevant to the principles that apply.

as for your follow-up, high-rep users on this site have decision making authority.

high-rep users are people who use this site a lot.

they get a lot of reputation points for making all kinds of nonsensical adjustments to questions based on long discussions that have been had with other high-rep users on meta.

Since you value consistency, I would encourage you to look up more of the claims that you make. Look up what plagiarism is. Look up what it means for a question to be protected on the Stack Exchange network and why it is done. Look up what the actual rules are, and the rationales for policies like the network-wide policy on duplicates.

I have no position on whether or not your positions are consistent from a theoretical perspective, but this entire conversation has been composed mainly of you making objectively false claims that you could easy correct by searching, and me trying to figure out if there is some kernel of truth to be found somewhere in them. Assuming you disagree with that summary -- as I expect you do, and as is your right -- then I suspect we have little more to say to one another.

yeah, i totally disagree

but this has gone on way too long

and yeah, it's dumb for me to single-handedly try to overthrow the mechanisms of SE

i'm just a guy

but for you all to have this practice of labeling an earlier question a duplicate is, once again, ridiculous

on its face

nothing more than that need be said